The Detroit Tigers went into 2025 with more optimism than in recent years. The whole “rebuild turned contender” narrative raised expectations of incremental improvement from many position players – and many of those expectations were not met.
Evan Petzold of the Detroit Free Press recently evaluated every position player from the Tigers’ 40-man roster, assigning letter grades to each one based on their performance in 2025, and let’s just say that very few of them are making the honor roll. Even average performances – which might’ve earned “B” grades two years ago – now looked like regression in context. The grades were based on expectation, not just output.
After the Tigers’ 2024 progress and a playoff appearance, 2025 was supposed to be the year their offense stabilized behind Riley Greene (B+), Spencer Torkelson (B) and Colt Keith (B-). Instead, nearly every projected core bat took a step back or plateaued.
Individually, none of the Tigers’ seasons were disastrous – but collectively, they made the offense one of the most stagnant in the American League. Harsh grades reflect a compounded disappointment more than personal failure.
Tigers’ position player grades for 2025 are harsh, but fair, given high expectations
Detroit’s front office and fanbase have signaled that they want a step forward. When players deliver a “same as last year” or worse, the editorial grades reflect frustration rather than allowance for rebuild-pace progress. With the comparative standard rising in Detroit after last season, the internal benchmark for what constitutes “acceptable” got sharper. This means borderline seasons are graded more harshly than in a low-expectation year.
Many Tigers position players still carry strong “tools” (speed, arm, defensive versatility, raw power) but the outcomes (on-base, slugging, defensive metrics) don’t always align. The grades reflect the gap between what should happen and what did happen.
In fairness, the stats back up the criticism. Looking at basic numbers for the 2025 Tigers, the team had offensive inconsistencies and defensive lapses. For example, the overall batting line, strikeout rates and defensive runs saved were not uniformly strong. The player grades reflect measurable under-performance.
Many of the players graded were expected to contribute meaningfully, as everyday starters or key bench pieces. With that role comes higher scrutiny. The grades mirror that elevated status rather than treating everyone as a “project.” Since the front office has signaled a “win-now” tilt (or at least building-toward-now), the players are judged as part of that push. It’s reasonable that evaluation is tougher in that context.
The Free Press grades may feel severe because they reflect both high expectations and a low tolerance for stagnation. But given the measurable results (or lack thereof) and the organizational trajectory, they’re far from unfair – they’re justified.
Leave a Reply